Trump Administration’s Proposed Rule to Reshape Federal Research Grants

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a draft rule on May 29 that would convert the existing “Uniform Guidance” for federal research grants into binding regulations. Under the proposal, political appointees—not subject-matter experts—would have final authority to approve, deny, suspend, or cancel awards. The rule would require that all grants “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” bar funding for projects deemed “anti-American” or contrary to “domestic-first” goals, restrict international collaborations, and prohibit the use of grant money for issue advocacy, public messaging, conference travel, or open-access publishing. The administration frames the changes as a means to “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight” and to ensure taxpayer dollars “serve the needs of the American public.” The public comment period closes on July 13, and the agency says the regulation could be finalized as early as October 1.

The Spokesman-Review

The Uniform Guidance, a set of non-binding guidelines, has long governed how universities, hospitals, and research institutes manage federal awards. The Trump administration has previously pursued aggressive cuts to research funding, including court-challenged suspensions of NIH, NSF, and DOE grants at the University of California system in 2025. The new rule represents the administration’s most expansive attempt to shift grantmaking authority from peer-review panels to political officials.

How the Trump administration’s revamp of funding guidelines could threaten research

• The Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments by mid-July, while the Boston Globe reported almost 280,000 comments nationwide and WBUR noted close to 300,000 submissions.

WBUR - NPR - Boston

• The rule would affect all federal research grants, encompassing billions of dollars annually across agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy.

The Spokesman-Review

OMB officials argue the rule will “ensure that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused” and will align awards with “law and policy” while holding recipients accountable for “relevant standards.” The White House contends that the changes will protect the nation’s “national interest” by preventing funding of projects that conflict with administration priorities. Senate Democrats, led by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, have urged bipartisan action to protect the budget process, but have not issued a formal response specific to the grant rule.

The Hill

A broad coalition of scientists, university leaders, professional societies, and bipartisan lawmakers has condemned the proposal. Harvard professor Eric Rubin warned that the rule “would certainly be bad for Boston,” while Harvard epidemiologist Nancy Krieger described it as a “brazen power grab” that threatens “everybody all at once.” UCLA pediatric-cancer researcher Julie Saba called the move “politicians are not the right people to be making those decisions.” The Planetary Society stated the changes would “all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.” Republican Senator Susan Collins asked the White House to withdraw portions of the rule, citing harm to small and rural communities and conflict with congressional control over funding.

Boston Globe

• “The quality of science here is very, very high,” — Eric Rubin, Harvard professor, editor-in-chief, *New England Journal of Medicine*

WBUR - NPR - Boston

• “You can imagine a situation in which their warnings might contradict the interests of an elected official,” — Dr. Staudt, climate scientist, University of Massachusetts

WBUR - NPR - Boston

• “It will politicize the grant-making process in all of these institutions by having a political appointee assigned to decide what grants get funded and what grants don’t,” — Tobias Higbie, professor of history and labor studies, UCLA

How the Trump administration’s revamp of funding guidelines could threaten research

• “Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” — Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, psychiatrist, Veterans Administration

The Spokesman-Review

• “If we damage our ability to understand, predict, respond to severe weather, then there are going to be negative effects on public safety, on infrastructure, national security and the economy,” — Dr. Staudt, climate scientist

WBUR - NPR - Boston

Sources differ on the total number of public comments submitted: WBUR cites “close 300,000,” the Boston Globe notes “almost 280,000,” and The Spokesman reports “nearly 100,000.” No definitive figure has been confirmed by OMB. Additionally, the rule’s language on “anti-American values” and “domestic-first” priorities remains vague, leaving uncertainty about how it will be applied to specific research topics.

Boston Globe

The comment window ends on July 13. If OMB proceeds, the regulation could be enacted by early October, at which point agencies would be required to follow the new approval process. Stakeholders have warned that the rule could trigger a wave of lawsuits alleging violations of existing statutes and First-Amendment rights, and congressional leaders have signaled willingness to intervene, though overturning the rule would require a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers.

WBUR - NPR - Boston